michel123456

There is a huge misunderstanding here. Take an example. Say you catch a politician telling a lie on a specific subject. Can you trust this guy anymore? on any other subject? The answer is: No. When you catch someone telling a lie, you lose your trust. That's the problem encountered by all churches across the ages. They don't want to lose trust because to them it trust=faith. So they cannot accept being caught not telling the truth (IOW lying). That has nothing to do with the subject, that being about the flat earth, the earth being at the centre of the Universe, the age of the earth and so on. The supporters are aiming to support their faith against people telling a "different" truth. They believe that faith is more important than anything else (certainly more than science). That happens today, that will happen tomorrow.

That gives me no insight about the basic understanding of time. Hey, where are you Sin ?

Can someone provide a link to an accurate description of the double slit experiment. i mean, not the result, but all the details. More specifically, I'd like to know the following 1. what is the material of the shield (the blocking screen) that have the 2 slits 2. whether this shield absorbs perfectly the photons that hit or whether the photons are reflected back in the room. 3. the thickness of this shield 4. the wavelength of the emitted light. For example I have read that the original experiment by Young was made with sunligth (I suppose with visible light). Visible light has a wavelength between 380nm and 780 nm. So if the shield in which the slits are opened has a thickness of 0,1mm (that is 100000nm), that represents between 263 and 128 times the wavelenght. At a macroscopic level, it is like shooting a grain of sand of 1mm diameter across a shield 128 mm thick (13 cm thick).

i am glad that you talk about displacement. Are you aware that it is not the standard point of vue? It is generally considered that objects somehow "extend" in time, that an object in a spacetime diagram is represented as a line. which is different from a "translation" or "displacement" as you stated and to which I agree with.

For understanding time, you can try the null situation: what would be a world without time. Would there be a force? No, because the action of a force is related to time. So a world without time would a world without any of the 4 known interactions. No strong nuclear force, no weak force, no electromagnetic force, no gravity. So, no time and ...Puff, the world disappears.

I'd suggest to begin with an idea, a very strong concept that will raise eyebrows, and find the details afterwards. For example you can mimic nature: make a tree with roots to collect geothermic energy and water and maybe food, and leaves to collect the sunlight. Or You can imagine an energy tower like a Solar updraft tower or even a downdraft energy tower since you are in the fantasy world and don't have to look at feasability issues. I am sure you will find some wonderful idea.

Another option is to use suction. try with a narrow straw (or maybe the same pen shaft) Edit The straw must come into contact with the magnet.

It is not. It is your personnal interpretation of the Gospel of John. Not even that: changing a text is different from interpretating a text. ----------- Snap on my fingers: never post in the Religion Forum again Michel.

Woaw, you are embarking on a difficult subject. In real life projects, there are a lot of requirements existing prior to making the architectural project. IMHO there are 2 ways to follow: 1. real life simulation 2. fantasy Option 1 is almost impossible. You have to decide for a real location, a real pupose (offices, appartments, hotel, shops, etc.) and many many other parameters. Option 2 is doable. You can rely on the laws of physics and your imagination. Choose a location (not necessarily in a city) that can be anywhere (in a desert, in the middle of a lake). In all cases the location will be a strong parameter. For example if you are in a desert the building should be self-sustainable. It means it should have its own resources in energy and in food and in water. The needs in shops and offices would be a function of its inhabitants. Maybe there would be some factory also. That is not an easy exercise. What kind of science project is it? About stability? -------------- or is this about the ability of manipulating a CAD program?

You have changed the Gospel of John. http://www.biblestudytools.com/john/1.html Also your comments are not clearly identifiable from the quoted text.

I am afraid that the majority of people visiting this internet creationist site will not take the time to follow the debate. The only thing that matters is that it shows that creationists are not afraid to debate with top scientists. That's what (lets say) 90% of visitors will understand. From the rest of 10%, even if 90% are pro-science, that is only 0,09% of the audience. Creationists win, no matter the result of the debate.

If the above do not work, you may try this, if there is some gap between the ball magnet and the hexagonal hole (as it should be). Take the ball pen (as shown in imatfaal picture), remove the parts of it and use only the shaft (the external part). Take the shaft into a plier and use a lighter to heat one end of the shaft, then abruptly put the half-molted shaft into the hole, with full strength. Wait for a while without moving anything. The molted plastic will hopefully go around your magnet and you'll be able to remove it when removing the shaft. Beware not to use a plastic that is highly flammable, you may burn the house! It is strongly recommended to make a try in a safe place (in a sink for example, next to water, or outside) and with the help of an adult before playing with fire. And use gloves. And the first aid kit at hand (choose the hand that will not be burned)

In a Minkowski diagram, the zone of positive time is what we are currently observing, IOW the positive is the down part of the diagram: the Past. If this is correct, then the negative part is the upper part of the diagram: the Future.(which is not observable) And if the above is correct, then we are currently living in the Present at the edge of the zone between positive and negative time. If the the 2 "ifs" are correct. ------------------------------------- Another view at it consists in switching the diagram upside down. If the Past switches with the Future, and the arrow of time stays upright, the diagram shows time reversal.

Very good point. I have seen the same reasoning with pedestrians crossing the road without even looking left or right, just because they have the right to cross when it is green for the pedestrians. The fact that you are right may kill you in the circumstances.

Τhen the giant runs the answerer through with his sword and says: "Ooops, sorry, my mistake."

Time is part of larger phenomena. We already know that time is inseparable from space. I believe that time is also inseparable from gravity.

Wasn't that an interesting question?

but if you reduce the mass to zero you don't need any propulsion system. You will travel at C. the question is : in which direction?

Yes. Yes yes. That is also my understanding. When someone moves, he moves in spacetime. When someone stays at rest, he still moves in spacetime but only in time. I repeat: When someone stays at rest, he "moves" in time. He change coordinates.

This quote is taken from the wiki article about defining position with the Lunar Distance method. The method uses a set of published tabulated values. Instead of tabulated values, one could imagine having at hand a mechanism. Both do the same job. Which reinforces my suggestion that the Antikythera Mechanism was a positioning device. Probably used in the purpose of making maps.

The article from Nature http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 No comment, simply for info.

There Are Two Errors in the the Title of This Page is a correct statement and There Is One Error in the the Title of This Page is also a correct statement I get the feeling that there is a confusion induced by the mathematical concept of function where one entry has only one result. Which is not even the case because the 2 statements are clearly different in syntax and in meaning.

There is no paradox. A text consists of 2 things: the text itself (the written symbols) and the meaning. In this case the 1st error is in the way the symbols are put next to each othe (the grammar syntax), the second error is in the meaning (the statement).

yes